Fluoride In Our Water: Is It Helpful Or Harmful?
"Health officials disagree on the long-term effects"
Here we go again a typical hyperbole in the July 22nd Londoner paper. That needs to be set straight for the record..
"But Andrew Henry, manager of regional water supply, says fluoride added to London's water is at such a low concentration 0.8 to 0.5 parts per million that a considerable amount of water would have to be consumed to create a health risk."
"Mr. Henry says the current allowable amount of fluoride in water has been reduced by half of what it was two years ago because health officials realized that such levels of fluoride were not necessary to contribute to dental health.
"Large concentrations of fluoride are considered to be potential health hazards, he admits, but says only small amounts of fluoride are added to London's drinking water to ensure good public dental health."
If this is so then why do kidney dialysis patients have to remove fluoride from city water in their machines? If this is not done, it could kill some of then obviously this is a good demonstration of short term adverse reaction to the low level of fluoride in water. Hence it follows, that long term potential health hazards must be far worse and effect a much larger population... Our bodies work on trace amounts of minerals so how can "such low levels of fluoride" be an exception?Examples of Fluoride poisoning linked to kidney dialysis patients can be viewed @
http://www.fluoridealert.org/annapolis.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/U-of-C.htmJust because it's in low concentration, it does not follow it is safe unless clinical trials are done that show it's safety. "In fact, the National Toxicology Program of the CDC has nominated silicofluorides to be tested, for the first time, for toxicological and carcinogenic properties-after more than 50 years of stonewalling and experimental use on humans" (See www.fluoridealert.org for documentation of effects on human health.
We are not allowed to adulterate our foods with any amount of lead, arsenic etc. (found in Hydrofluorosilicic acid used in our water). Please show why such adulteration of water should be an exception.
Further, "Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children's blood. Because of lead's acknowledged ability to damage the child's developing brain, this is a very serious finding yet it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries." This is also true of other metals such as aluminum etc.
"David Banting, a professor in the division of practice administration at the University of Western Ontario's school of dentistry, says fluoridated water has a beneficial effect, but potential problems can arise if too much is consumed."
Dr. Banting and his ilk continue to espouse on the efficacy of ingesting fluoride. This is an out and out lie and a total disgrace. Where is the proof in the form clinical trials that shows that the beneficial effects of ingesting water treated with Hydrofluorosilicic acid? And please don't hoodwink us with drug grade Sodium Fluoride topical use studies - this is not the same as ingesting impure fluorides.
"Fernando Inocencio, a professor at the School of Dentistry at the University of Western Ontario, says adding fluoride to water is a controversial issue. Despite research, such as Dr. Limeback's, that suggests fluoridated water is unnecessary and perhaps dangerous, he says he is an advocate of fluoridated water."
What self serving BS, there is no controversy. Fluoride is well recognized as a general enzyme poison (arising from its powerful hydrogen-bonding propensity that disrupts protein [and DNA/RNA] structures) and it displays high acute toxicity (ca. 5 mg/kg as threshold lethal dose), ranking as an acute toxicant lying between lead and arsenic. A host of chronic toxic effects of lead and arsenic are acknowledged by EPA (e.g. hematopoietic effects, cardiovascular effects, neurologic effects, carcinogenicity, etc.). Just read a few Fluoride Journals to check this out. It is only controversial because they want it to serve the industry agenda.
What in effect he is saying is that no matter what studies/data you show, he is still going to advocate fluorides - very scientific indeed!
"It is a good way to reinforce the amount of fluoride necessary in the body, Dr. Inocencio says, adding that it is important to dental health but does not replace brushing with fluoridated toothpaste or regular visits to the dentist."
Dental fluorosis (permanently discolored and defective tooth enamel - read damaged teeth) has long been medically defined as a symptom of fluoride toxicity and is the red flag of overdose. Imagine what it is doing to the rest of the bones. This condition is now epidemic in North America with rates up to 65% in fluoridated areas and 40% in non-fluoridated areas. It is caused by fluoridation and uncontrolled fluoride intake from foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water, dental treatments, fluoride supplements, pharmaceuticals, and pesticide residues on produce. Because of this, children today ingest as much fluoride compared to water fluoridated at 1ppm in 1957. We already have too much yet Drs. Inocencio and Banting have the audacity to imply that removing fluoride in water will lower fluoride intake to prevent cavities! When in fact the teeth are being damaged with too much fluoirde!
See: http://64.177.90.157/pfpc/html/pesticides.html
Given the above why then is it necessary to add more to the water?
Could it be that damaged teeth from fluoride is good for dental business?
Are these "so called experts" still not familiar with the 1999 update of Dr. Lockers report: "Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation"?In the Executive summary of this report it is quoted: "The magnitude of the effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." And "Canadian studies do not provide systematic evidence that water fluoridation is effective in reducing decay in contemporary child populations." (After 40 years of fluoridation experiments we still don't have enough data? Yet this and other reports recommend more studies to determine dangers and advantages for ongoing use! Continued injury to the constituents seems to be of no concern at all - imagine?)
If after 40 years there is no "systematic evidence" than why, on earth, do to we need to fluoridate the water?
Are they not aware that Fluoride is toxic?
If yes, than why do they want to put a toxic substance in our water? I bet they have not read any laboratory studies or other work on living tissue about the effects of fluoride in water but, none the less, they still consider themselves as experts! What about Drs Burk and Yamouyiannis work on fluoridation and cancer, the epidemiological studies? I am not an expert yet I have read some of these works!
If fluoridation is so safe then why is it banned in so many enlightened European countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Italy, France etc.?
In some cases cavities double after water Fluoridation.
Where is the precautionary principle here?
Do they know that hydrofluorosilicic acid used in our water, is a substance that is scrubbed out of smokestacks of the fertilizer industry, is unlicensed medicinal substance not approved in North America for administration to humans. This chemical, has never been tested for purity and consistency and has no Drug Identification Number; is manufactured and packaged in unsanitary conditions is adulterated with traces of lead, cadmium and arsenic. Is non-compliant with the prescribed standard for fluoride drugs?
Yet this toxin is administered in our water. The city medicates all residents (even those who voted against or did not vote on water Fluoridation) and visitors without first obtaining their legal informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner. They don't even know all the other impurities that may be with the hydrofluorosilicic acid besides those mentioned above.
See: Fluoridation: A Violation of Medical Ethics and Human Right
Less than a teaspoon of this toxin will kill an adult. How would the fertilizer industry deal with such a dangerous chemical and how many millions of dollars would safe disposal cost if they were not able to dispose of it for considerable profit in our drinking water?
I challenge Drs.Inocencio and Banting to produce any credible evidence regarding their pro fluoridation position. Unlike them and without any compensation, I have provided data (The Locker Report above etc.) for my position. Also please respond to earlier questions submitted to the city of London in early 2001 see:
Fluoridation of City of London Water - Concern
Of course the typical pro fluoridation expert camp strategically avoid debates because they know their information doesn't stand up to objective scrutiny (see the ligation example below) instead they attack the sources and people providing the evidence.....
"He (Dr.Banting) adds that public health officials monitor water to ensure fluoride levels are safe."
"Dr. Inocencio says there are some areas in which the concentration of fluoride in water is dangerous and that such high levels can be poisonous. "But this is something that's easy to control once it is realized. Health officials regularly monitor the amounts of fluoride in water and add decreased amounts if necessary, he explains."
Just like they did in Walkerton - The monitoring is not perfect, as we are led to believe, human errors and equipment breakdowns do occur. This is a fact of life. In this case, there simply is no justification to take such a serious risk especially when an efficacious topical option with medical grade low cost fluoride is has been available available for years. Even this is not needed if one's nutrition is adequate...
"Dr. Banting says fluoridated water is an easy and cost effective way to get fluoride to people. "Putting fluoride in water is a way of getting it to people regardless of social class. If it is taken out of water, it then involves a direct out of pocket cost, he says, adding that some people may not be able to take on the costs of purchasing fluoridated toothpaste or visiting the dentist regularly, and their dental health could suffer as a result."
What a load of rubbish. This is really scraping the barrel for support on his position - shame on him! What in effect he is saying is that we have to poison everybody even those with good teeth just so that we can justify it for all those with poor nutrition. Should he not be advocating the improvement of nutrients for all social classes? Who is going to teach us about the value of good nutrition if it is not the "so called experts"? One does not go about adding poisons in drinking water of people with already compromised diets!
Those who still want fluoride should be provided the toxicity data and if they still want to medicate themselves then they can be given free, cheaply available, medical grade Sodium Fluoride instead of more expensively subjecting all to a toxic fertilizer byproduct.
See: Food, Not Fluoride, Reduces Cavities
The industry stooges at the School of Dentistry at the University of Western Ontario continually mislead our city council members (many of who, the last time saw them, were themselves drinking non fluoridated bottled water) and keep this issue "controversial" so that the industry fluoridation agenda can be maintained.
Being masters of manipulation, these "so called experts" hide behind the self serving bureaucracy and exploit the `public trust. They realize that the general inability for a lay person to hold them accountable. As this will require them to take these, highly paid, shysters to court which is time consuming, expensive and hence unlikely. However, time is coming when we will have do just that and force these pretentious experts in the open. The weight of data against fluoridation has always won in courts and it should give these so called Drs. a reality check and thoroughly dethrone their egos and status as "experts" Following is just one good example:
From the illuminating extracts in above manuscript one can really see how expert the experts pretend to be. This is a must read for all to understand who we are dealing with and how we are manipulated towards the industry agenda....
Chris Gupta
posted by Chris Gupta on Thursday August 5 2004
updated on Saturday September 24 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/08/05/fluoride_in_our_water_is_it_helpful_or_harmful.htm
Related ArticlesArtificial Water Fluoridation: Off To A Poor Start / Fluoride Injures The Newborn
Please watch this short 5 minute video: Little Things Matter: The Impact of Toxins on the Developing Brain Toxins such as Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, Aluminum and other known and unknown chemicals, that are often above the legal limits, are deliberately added to our water to manage the disposal of toxic industrial waste chemicals under the pretense of "safe and effective" for water fluoridation mantra.Knowing and acting on the above should... [read more]
December 30, 2014 - Chris GuptaDrinking Water Fluoridation is Genotoxic & Teratogenic
This paper by Prof. Joe Cummins is a very important 5 minute delegation made to London Ontario Canada "Civic Works Committee" public participation meeting on January 25, 2012 on fluoride*. While a bit technical it is short and easy to grasp. A must read as it goes to the heart of the matter regarding the well established toxicity of fluoride which is well in all scientific circles even before water... [read more]
February 06, 2012 - Chris GuptaDemocracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride
Here is a commentary on the recent (Jan, 25th, 2011) Public Participation Meeting (PPM) on Fluoride in the City of London, Ontario. The meeting started with a strong pro fluoride stance form the City engineer. His lack of knowledge on chemistry of the toxic wastes used to fluoridate water could embarrass even a high school student never mind his own profession. He blatantly violated his "duty to public welfare" as... [read more]
January 29, 2012 - Chris Gupta
